Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archie vs. Predator/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2017 [1].

Archie vs. Predator

[edit]
Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the four-issue comic book miniseries Archie vs Predator. The format follows Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics. I am open to any and all suggestions and always willing to work on any issues there may be. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments from Aoba
  • I am not sure the bolded text for “meets” in the “Development” subsection is really necessary as the difference in the titles is made clear in the context of the sentence.
addressed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn’t the first reference be at the end of the sentence for the first sentence of the “Development” subsection? The placement seems somewhat awkward.
I originally put it there because the ref sourced that half of the sentence, and the second half was sourced by the ref at the end of the second sentence following. I've moved it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The “Publication” subsection is composed of rather short paragraphs. It would greatly benefit this section and the article as a whole to somehow combine all of these smaller paragraphs into a single and make it a cohesive narrative.
Done Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would combine the first and second paragraphs and the third and fourth paragraphs of the “Plot” section as the paragraphs as it currently stands are rather short and choppy.
Done Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of red links. That is not a problem as I understand the importance of red links, but make sure that all of the red links are subjects that may lead to articles in the future.
I removed links for the individuals/websites that are least likely to have articles. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend revising the second paragraph of the “Reception” section with this resource in mind here. You want the reception sections to read like a narrative informing the reader about the critical response to the material. Also, are there any more reviews for this series? This section seems rather short. You might also want to expand on the reviews you already have in the section.
  • I am not sure what you mean by “After Archie proposed the crossover”? Who is the Archie in this context? It makes me think of the fictional character, which is obviously not correct. Could you make this clearer for an unfamiliar reader?
Clarified that it was Archie Comics. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you expand on the sentence about the editorial pushback for the story arc? Do you know what the story arc was and what the final version turned out to be? And could expand on what depth she added to Dilton Doiley? I know this may not be possible, but I want to clarify on these points.
I would really like to expand on the pushback, but the writer was vague in the interview. I suspect she had to be coy, since she was talking about a development the copyright holder did not approve.
I can expand on the depth she added, but I don't have a source to support anything specific. Is the work itself sufficient to support Dilton's additional motivation, or would that be OR? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response! I was more so curious if there is more information about this. These sentences look fine as there are right now, and I think that all of the references are appropriate for this part. Aoba47 (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that “Synopsis” is a more appropriate section title than “Plot” as I have seen this wording used more in the comic-related FAs. However, this may be more of a stylistic choice so this is up to you on this one.
The project MOS is oddly silent on this, since it's geared more toward articles about creators and characters. I've changed this to reflect your observation. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Argento Surfer:Good job with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will give another look and most likely support this FAC. Good luck with getting this promoted in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I have made changes based on your suggestions. Thank you for the input. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Argento Surfer: Thank you for your quick responses. You have done a wonderful job with this article. I support this nomination. I was wondering if you could possibly help me with my FAC for Russell family (Passions)? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I understand if it is not possible. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

[edit]

By chance, I just finished reading this comic. There is quite an extensive afterword (and foreword) in the hard-cover version I have (along with other "behind the scenes" extras), and it seems like an oversight that much of this detail is left out, as it could provide much more context in most of the sections here. I assume you don't have these pages? If not, I can perhaps send some of them to you. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct - I have not looked through the hardcover. I'm going to my LCS later today, I'll see if they have a copy I can peruse. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I found a copy in the shop yesterday, but it was still shrink wrapped. Any access you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you enable email or send me one? Then I can send you some mobile photos, if they turn out good. --FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I have added additional material. Thanks for sending the images of those pages! Argento Surfer (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'll review this after the weekend. FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems when the Predator character is mentioned, Predator (alien) should be linked to, rather than the franchise page?
  • "1994 one-shot Archie Meets the Punisher" I'd maybe put "issue" or "comic" after one shot, just to break up the continuous blue link.
  • I think the roles of people involved should be stated at first mention. Such as "the artist Fernando Ruiz", etc.
  • "or that he would be get to be involved" Something seems wrong.
  • "Soon after, many media outlets carrying the news used a headline indicating it was not a joke." Wouldn't this sentence make more sense if it was explained before whether the announcement had been seen as a joke earlier?
  • Shouldn't it be mentioned in the synopsis that the predator only attacks the characters when they are armed? Seems to be a pretty important point.
  • "best selling comic book among other release that month" Releases?
  • "The book received positive review" Reviews?
  • "him meeting the galaxy's deadliest hunter, the Predator" Only stated in the intro. I think the Predator character needs more presentation in the article body. Unfamiliar readers would hardly know that it is an alien from a movie from just reading this article.
  • It seems it would be interesting to go into a bit more depth about the art style? The hardcover extras explain why they went for the "classic" Archie style (rather than more realistic, as in other recent Archie comics), and that they had to simplify the Predator a great deal, and that all the artists worked on the same physical papers, which isn't done much anymore.
  • Image review - there is a single fair use image in low res with an appropriate rationale.
I have addressed these points. I expanded on the not-a-joke headline to clarify why readers may have thought it was a joke, but as far as I know all those headlines were to avoid the idea, not dispel it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but seems the last point about art style wasn't addressed? FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the intro should have a very short synopsis of the story. It is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, after all. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't hit the save button on the last point before I edited this. Both points have been addressed. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks good - I am not much of a comic reader so this might sound dumb, but how does this comic slot in with Archie canon if Archie and main characters are killed? Is it an alternate timeline and if so are there others in it or is it standalone?
Archie has pretty loose cannon and the stories don't usually reference each other, similar to The Simpsons. An alternate timeline would probably be the best way to describe this particular miniseries. So far, there have been no follow up stories to it. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok then. Would a note to this effect be helpful? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the non-canon status to the lead. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stated specifically in the sources that it is non-canonical? Also, there should be no info in the intro not found in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well...it seemed WP:BLUE to me. Characters die here, but they're alive in all the other Archie material (except maybe Afterlife with Archie). I'm happy to move it from the lead to the PH section, or remove it entirely. Whichever will satisfy both you and @Casliber:. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but to play Devil's advocate, it could also just be another "universe", since multiverses aren't entirely unknown in comics... Especially since there seem to be various parallel Archie runs in different styles as well. My point being that if it isn't stated specifically in a source, it can be hard to make the judgement here... FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree, but I see your point. That line has been removed. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't necessarily have to be removed; if others are for it, I have no problem,. But if a source could be found, it would of course be nicer. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This has a couple of supports, but nothing has happened for quite a while and we are in danger of stalling now. If nothing happens in the next week, we might have to consider archiving. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps ping some editors you think may be interested, Argento Surfer? Notify relevant projects? I've been told this doesn't count as WP:Canvassing. Pinging has saved my nominations before. FunkMonk (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is fine as long as the notices are neutrally worded and don't ask for support. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified the comics and alien projects. If no one responds in the next couple days, I will try pinging specific editors. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

Please revert my copyedits if I've messed anything up.

  • Is it possible to clarify the licensing relationship when Dark Horse and Fox are first mentioned? A reader who's never heard of either won't know that Dark Horse produce the Predator comic and Fox produce the movie.
  • A related point: you say that "Dark Horse and Fox quickly agreed", but later refer to only two licensors when talking about de Campi's script, implying that Dark Horse had no say at that stage. I would have thought Fox were the real licensor, so did Dark Horse really have a say? Or did they just have to release comic book rights?
  • Are the Ghastly Awards worth a redlink?

Other than these minor points it looks in good shape and I expect to support once these are settled. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified the first point in the lead. To the second point, I assume that since the book was being edited by a Dark Horse employee, Dark Horse's concerns were addressed at an earlier stage and therefore in a different category from Archie and Fox's concerns. That's just speculation on my part - the sources unfortunately don't provide more clarity. To the third, I suppose it wouldn't hurt. A search shows other articles have mentioned these awards as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- can you mention (and cite) the info about Dark Horse and Fox in the body as well as the lead? Everything in the lead should also be in the body, and of course we need a cite in the body. That's the only remaining point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. That last fix does it for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moisejp

[edit]
  • The lead mentions that "Dark Horse ... holds the license to comics featuring the Predator character owned by 20th Century Fox." But I didn't seem to see that in the main text. It just jumps directly into saying that Dark Horse and 20th Century Fox agreed to the idea, without any introduction of their role as stakeholders. Moisejp (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • done.
  • A small point, but the article says that Dark Horse had published the Archie Archives reprints. So did Archie Comics and Dark Horse have previous business dealings, and if so is it worthwhile mentioning more explicitly?
  • I expanded on this a bit to clarify Wright had coordinated with Archie before.
  • Possible consistency issues: Archie Andrews and Betty Cooper are wiki-linked and called by their full names in the lead, and given mini-introductions ("all-American teenager", "high school student"—are two intros required for Archie?—and "one of Archie's girlfriends"); in the main text for the first mention of Betty and Veronica ("She drew inspiration for the story from the 1940s era of Archie, when Betty and Veronica...") are only called by their first names, with no wiki-links or introductions; in the Synopsis section there are wiki-links for everyone but Archie, but again only first names are used, and no introductions (except Kevin Keller)—it may assume that all readers already know who Betty, Veronica, and Jughead are. Moisejp (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have linked full names for all characters in the synopsis except for Dilton, who was linked in the PH section.
  • "In one case, editorial pushback led her to rewrite a story arc, and she was much happier with the final version.[7] She was pleased when she got to add depth to Dilton Doiley, a character she feels is often overlooked in regular Archie comics." I wasn't sure (and didn't look at the sources), but are the two sentences talking about the same story arc? My guess is they probably are, but if so, maybe it would be possible to make the transition clearer between the two sentences?
  • I couldn't find any additional information on the altered storyline. Campi was rather coy in the interview, I'm guessing because she can't discuss ideas that weren't approved by the licensors.
  • "Archie Comics and Dark Horse Comics jointly announced Archie vs. Predator and the creative team at the 2014 New York Comic Con." I was wondering whether "and the creative team" could be cut from this sentence—it seems like a less important point, and doesn't flow very well for me. It means they announced both the comic and the team that had made it? If you would like to keep it in, may I suggest "...and its creative team"? Moisejp (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it to your suggestion. New comic titles are sometimes announced before the writer and/or artist are determined. It happens often enough that I think it deserves a mention.
  • "A 128-page hardcover collecting the series was released November 4, 2015." FunkMonk mentioned above that there were "behind the scenes extras" included. Would it be worthwhile to briefly mention this?
  • I added that it includes "bonus content". I can be more specific if you would like.
  • "Betty and Veronica take refuge at Lodge Manor." I believe this is so called because Veronica's family are the Lodges? But Veronica's last name has not been given yet in the article. Moisejp (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Veronica is now introduced with first and last name.
  • The Synopsis section feels like it has a lot of subject-verb-object sentences. May I suggest varying the structure of a couple more sentences in the section for better overall flow?
  • I have not fixed this yet, but am currently working on the best places to make changes.
  • done

In general, a very interesting article, and I expect to support if you address the comments above. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Your changes look good. I made several additional copy-edits just now. One other little point, the sales figures in the Reception section are for all of the USA? Not worldwide sales, right? It could be good to specify this. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sales numbers are... complicated. The numbers provided are estimates from Diamond Comic Distributors, which is virtual monopoly on comic sales to comic specialty shops in North America. It also operates worldwide with competing distributors. Precise numbers that include other distributors and "newsstand sales" (such as grocery stores, supermarkets, Barnes & Noble) are not available. Industry insiders often comment that the reported numbers are inaccurate, and that's backed up by the discrepancy between the best sellers as reported by Diamond and the New York Times (The NYT uses bookscan data from non-specialty stores). However, the error in the numbers are typically consistent, which does allow for accurate month-to-month comparison and relative rankings. This is why I didn't list any specific numbers for the individual sales, just the sales decline and rankings. Most of this is tangential to this specific book, but I've specified that it was Diamond who ranked the HC 36th for the month. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Just a reminder that as well as addressing the comments above, I think we still need 1) a source review for formatting and reliability, and 2) if I'm correct in assuming this is the nominator's first FAC, a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first FAC. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I started looking at the sources, so I might as well do a source review. Just on first glance:

  • Some refs are missing names. I added a few for you already. Refs #19 and #31 are still missing names.
  • In refs #21–24 should Alex de Campi's name be last name first? That's what I would have thought.
  • You have a wiki-link for Alex de Campi in ref #21 but the first appearance of her name is in ref #2.

I'll continue looking tomorrow or soon, and try to spotcheck some sources too. By the way, it's not a requirement for FA, but have you thought of archiving all of your online sources? It's a good idea for preserving access to the sources in the future (i.e., reducing linkrot). Moisejp (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may take a day or two for me to locate the names for those two sources. Most of my work is done through an internet filter, and I'll need to make a special trip to re-access those two sites. I'll fix the de Campi link and name order. I don't have any experience archiving sources. I don't suppose there's a handy how-to link? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to hunt down some info for you about archiving, or type up a little explanation. It's pretty straightforward once you get the hang of it. Another thing I noticed is that your references are inconsistent about whether they use a template—for example, your Sunu, Steve and Emm, Fox ones don't, but there are others. It's a good idea to have a clean, consistent structure to your referencing. This also helps when other editors want to assist in maintaining an article in the future. In case you need them, here is a list of templates you can use. I wasn't sure what you meant about an internet filter limiting your online access, but if you need help quickly getting names or other parameters for your references, I could maybe help. I have to run right now, but will follow up again soon. Moisejp (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of my editing is done while I'm at work and most of the internet is blocked for not being work related. I don't have the internet at home, either. My normal method for page creation is to Google relevant (blocked) sites, email the links to myself, then open the pages on my laptop at a library. I take the laptop home and review the content at my leisure. Once the page is mostly done, I email to myself and tweak it in my sandbox while I'm at work. Hence, I can't review the two sources you mentioned right now, but I should be able to get them corrected in a day or two.
I'll start reformatting the citations today. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added names for you to refs #19 and 31, but please do still add proper templates to these. I've also done a few other bits of formatting clean-up. My next step will be to check for the suitability of all the sources, and to spot check some of them to make sure the info cited is good. Once you have finished all of your template fixing up (including adding archived refs, if you choose to do so), I'll have another final look at the ref formatting as well. Moisejp (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For ref #11 when you use a proper template and use the parameter deadurl=yes, the archived link will become the main, prominent link, which is more user-friendly. Just now I clicked on the non-archived link, which was a dead link, and didn't realize under after that there was an archived link to click. Anyway, I guess that'll be fixed in due process as you add templates. I'm just mentioning just in case.
  • I have spot-checked a number of refs and so far everything looks good. For the sentence "Dark Horse approached Alex de Campi to write based on her work on the horror comic book Grindhouse and the humorous comic book My Little Pony: Friends Forever.[3][5][7]" I see that My Little Pony is not mentioned in the online refs #3 or #7, so I can only guess it is covered in book ref #5. Would it be worthwhile to attribute the first part of the sentence (Grindhouse) to refs #3 and #7 and then the second part (My Little Pony) to #5? It's just a little thing but it arguably makes for cleaner referencing. Moisejp (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've checked the reliability of all the sources, and they all seem to be good.

I may have one or two minor suggestions for the ref formatting, but I'll wait until you have finished adding the templates, etc. Moisejp (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE the My Little Pony source - I was once told in a GAR that it's more reader-friendly to put all sources at the end of a sentence. I'm ok with moving it if you think that would be better. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it's a matter of preference, I'm not sure. For me, clumping them all at the end requires the reader to do extra mental work—if they want to verify what is in the article—by having to figure out which source relates to each point. I prefer separating them. Just looking quickly in the style guide, the example about the sun and the moon in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Parenthetical_referencing does separate them (doesn't put them all at the end)—although I'm not sure if there is a longer discussion about the question somewhere. Moisejp (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking around, it to be a judgment call. The FA Rhodotus has lots of midsentence citations, particularly in the 2nd paragraph of Habitat and distribution. I believe Wikipedia:Inline citation#Text–source integrity is saying midsentence is appropriate for "particularly contentious" content, but end of sentence is otherwise fine. It does emphasize caution when material gets rearranged to ensure the right citation stays with the content. If you think this particular material calls for midsentence, I'm ok with doing so. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ian Rose: Yes, Spotcheck of several sources complete and good, as well as reliability of the sources. The only outstanding issue is that some of the references don't use a template while some do, and my understanding is that Argento Surfer is in the process of working on that per [[2]]. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Drive-by comment): Just FYI, I don't think there's an FA requirement to use templates. Generally if you use them for one reference it makes sense to use them for all references, because it makes consistency much easier to accomplish, but it's the consistency that's the FA requirement, not the means of accomplishing it. There are some editors who use formats that can't be achieved with templates, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification, Mike. If I implied that the templates in themselves were required for the FAC then that was a mistake on my part. I partially meant that it was important to be consistent, and adding templates to the template-less ones seemed like the best approach. But if it happens there are sources that don't fit any templates in this case, that would be a consideration as well, as you suggest. Moisejp (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; I wasn't criticizing, just making sure it was clear. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How the cites are formetted in the source is irrelevant to FAC—only how they're displayed needs to be consistent. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ian Rose: The formatting of the references is now the same throughout thanks to consistent use of templates. For example, while this version [[3]] contains a mixture of "(accessed... )" and "Retrieved..." the current version uses only "Retrieved..." I am now satisfied with all aspects of the sources, including the spotcheck and reliability check I mentioned above. Moisejp (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

[edit]

Archie vs. Predator has appeared as a comic book and a collected volume. It wouldn't be correct to define it as "a four-issue limited series comic book"—this confuses content and format, like defining a pop song as "a 7-inch 45 RPM vinyl single". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the lead to clarify. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've done some light copyediting, and I think the article meets the FA criteria. The article could use some tweaks, though:

"In one case, editorial pushback led her to rewrite a story arc, and she was much happier with the final version."—this doesn't really tell us anything. it tantalizes the reader without giving any details, and really doesn't say anything that wouldn't be expected from any other such project, but in the vaguest terms. This kind of thing just drags down the prose by avoiding "getting to the point". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - That line has been questioned multiple times, both here and in the GAR review. I've removed it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archie_vs._Predator/archive1&oldid=768462455"